1. By way of this appeal, the present appellants-original claimants have challenged the judgement and award dated 24.09.2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot, in M.A.C.P. No.393 of 2000, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,57,336/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 23.01.2000, one Paresh Bhagwanji was driving his motorcycle No.GJ-3M-804 on left side of the road with reasonable speed. But from opposite side driver of Fiat car No.GJ-1-5798 came with full speed, drove his car rashly and negligently and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to this accident Paresh Bhagwanji sustained serious injuries on the vital parts of the body and died in the hospital. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.393 of 2000 before the Tribunal for compensation.
3. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the tribunal has not properly considered the evidence produced on record. He further submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121, the tribunal has committed an error in awarding the future income of the deceased. Therefore he submitted that the amount awarded by the tribunal may be enhanced by this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the judgement and award of the tribunal. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon FIR, Panchnama and oral evidences and rightly held the driver of the bus original opponent no.1 solely negligent for the accident.
6. So far as the issue of quantum is concerned, the Tribunal relying upon the evidence on record rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,475/-. In my view the Tribunal has erred in not calculating the prospective income. Hence, the prospective income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,212.50 rounded off to Rs.5,250/-. As the claimants are parents of the deceased, ½ amount is required to be deducted. Therefore, monthly dependency comes to Rs.2,625/- and accordingly annual dependency comes to Rs.31,500/-. As the age of the deceased was 21 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal should have adopted multiplier of 14. Hence, total amount of dependency comes to Rs.4,41,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering, in my view it is on higher side, it should be at Rs.10,000/- under the same head. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses in my view it is just and proper. In all the appellants are entitled for Rs.4,56,000/- whereas the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,57,336/-. Therefore, appellants are entitled for additional sum of Rs.1,98,664/- but as the appeal is restricted to the tune of Rs.90,000/-, appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.90,000/- alongwith 7.5% interest per annum from the date of application till realization.
7. The appeal is allowed. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The decree be drawn accordingly.
mehul (K.S.JHAVERI,J.)